On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 10:30:45AM -0500, Sean Staats wrote:
> I created a new replication cluster.  It turns out that starting the  
> table IDs at id=1 and the sequence IDs at id=1001 didn't make any  
> difference as slony gave me the same error (sequence ID 1001 has already  
> been assigned.)  Increasing the log verbosity to 4 doesn't produce any  
> more useful debugging information.  Time for another approach.
>
> Would it make sense to create 2 different sets - one to replicate the  
> tables and one to replicate the sequences?  Is there a downside to this  
> kind of workaround?

It'd be better to figure out what the duplication is caused by.  Have
a look in the _slony tables and check to see what's in there.  Where's
the collision?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at crankycanuck.ca